It
seems much more plausible that the three points the apostle John lists here are
in reference to the misconceptions of what Israelites perceived as their given covenantal
rights in the context of the first century as direct descendants of
Abraham:
· not
of blood = being a descendant of blood relative of Abraham (Rom. 9:7)
· nor
of the will of the flesh = being one who “pursued” or “ran
after” the law so as to merit righteousness (Rom. 9:31)
· nor
of the will of man [husband’s will] = being married or in any way
under the patriarchal head
The
apostle is knocking the legs out from under those Jews who think they have the right
to be God’s child because of who their grandfather is (blood), their
law-keeping efforts (fleshly running), or by patriarchal headship (husband’s
will). John is not attempting to make a soteriological stance defending the
deterministic nature of man’s compatibilistic free will in order to put the
libertarian free will advocates in their place. That seems quite absurd given
the context of the huge shift at this time where the gospel is moving from the
Jewish context into a predominately Gentile context. Consider what the Apostle Paul
wrote regarding the common misconception of the first-century Jews:
What
then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have
obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who
pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not?
Because they pursued it not by faith but as it were by works. (Rom.
9:39-32, emphasis added)
Notice
that Paul is not denouncing the will to pursue. He is denouncing the manner or purpose
of that pursuit. Is righteousness being pursued by works or by faith? Are you
running after the law, or are you running after Christ? People are responsible
to will and to run (1 Corinthians 9:24; 2 Timothy 4:7), but if they do so
according to the law and the flesh they will never finish the race. They will
not attain their goal. If, however, they pursue righteousness by faith in the
only righteous One, they will obtain it by grace.
Calvinists
have mistakenly applied the scripture’s teaching on man’s inability to attain
righteousness by means of the law as proof of their erroneous claims that
mankind is born morally incapable of attaining righteousness by faith (i.e., Total
Inability). Calvinists seem to think that a man’s inability to “climb a
rope to heaven” (works salvation) equals man’s moral incapacity to confess
those inabilities and place their trust in the only One who can successfully
climb that rope is our stead (grace applied through faith). That innate moral
incapacity to trust in Christ due to the Fall of Adam is simply never taught in
the pages of scripture. Nothing in the Bible remotely suggests that the Fall
has made mankind morally incapable of responding positively to God’s own
life-giving, inspired gospel appeal to be reconciled from that Fall!
All
agree that we must be born of God to be saved, but no scripture ever teaches we
must be born again in order to gain the moral capacity to believe the gospel.
We are not given a new heart, so as to confess we need to have a bad heart.
That is simply getting the proverbial cart before the horse. In fact, the
apostle John clearly states that God gives new life “to all who did receive
him, to those who believed on his name,” and not to a group of very fortunate
individuals chosen for no apparent reason before time began (i.e., Unconditional
Election).
According
to Jesus in John 6, He gave His flesh for the life of the world, as is
recorded in verse 51, “and the bread also which I will give for the life of the
world is My flesh.” Notice the universality of Jesus’ statement, which once
again is reminiscent of the Provisionistic perspective seen most clearly in John
3:16 and earlier in chapter 1, verse 9, which states, “There was the true Light
which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.” Or even John the Baptist’s
testimony later in verse 29, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of
the world.” (Leighton Flowers, Drawn by Jesus: A Biblical Defense of God’s
Provision for All and a Rebuttal of James White’s Book “Drawn By the Father” [Trinity
Academy Press, 2024], 150-53)
